Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 2017 ?

I would prefer to see the 200 Mil league go away, but if it were to remain it should be a non DH format. This may reduce the number of 16-15 games.

I am also in favor of tossing the 200ML team. Replace with 80 or 100m. 140mil should be max.

I like the setup. Knock out 200 million
For every 1 in the final 12 let them introduce a card to be added. Champ 5 cards. Runner-up 3. Playoff losers 2. Non playoff teams1.

Keep the suggestions coming as well as whether you agree or disagree with other people's thought. The more input the better. Thank you.

I would like the 60M eliminated and another 140M added. In addition one AL or NL only subset league or even an era league (Post, Pre) would be nice. Points for championships should be cut in half, Hard to make the semis without making the finals twice. Big thanks to Moose for doing this for all of us!!

I am going to be somewhat contrarian here.

I say keep the 200. I know a lot of people will argue about this, but personally I think that the 200 mil teams involve more day to day managing and strategy than does any other format. You have the flexibility and cap room to carry specialty players on your bench and you have to be able to evaluate when to utilize your bench. I personally find the 140 has the least amount of strategy, as you have enough money to buy 9 high priced position players and 4 top of the line starters, or maybe a platoon or 2, then you put out the same group day after day for 8 weeks. All the strategy is gone as soon as the first set of games start. And unlike what I have heard many people say about the 200 million teams, I do not attribute success in the 200 leagues solely to the luck of your draft or else you would not see the same people being successful in that format time and time again.

I do think too many points are given for playoffs. I would like to see managers get points for winning playoff games (up to 8 wins in a 12 team league) and then perhaps 2 bonus points for winning the whole thing, giving you an even 10 for a championship. But there is too much of a crapshoot in the playoffs, and the 15 point difference between losing out in game 7 of the semis and winning a championship is just a huge amount in the great scheme of the tournament format.

I like the format of having the top 9 go directly through to the championship. It gives you a reason to play all the leagues and try to keep winning, but then allowing the next 36 to get a shot into the finals with a championship in a semifinal league. I wouldn't want to see that changed.

I like the 200M and agree with Chris on the differing kind of strategy involved. Also, I feel like all the different caps there is an element of luck in the draft anyway.

I think there should be leagues at 60, 80, 100, 140 and 200 because different players do better at different caps and this help level the playing field. Having 2 of the 6 leagues play the exact same cap gives certain players an edge. I also like the idea of making the 6th a specialty league, whether pre/post or AL/NL can be determined later.

I like the concept of taking the playoffs to 24 teams, with the first 12 getting a bye to the finals and the next 72 making the semis. More teams in the post season leads to more sustained interest later in the year.

Playoff wins should count on your standings total, but there should be some bonus for winning the semis and finals, because as we all know, "you play to win the game".

Finally, I would like to see the semis require a different stadium than those used in league play. If you play in all six leagues, you will still have 1 stadium grouping left unused. This would lead to more strategy as to whether you save your favorite stadium for the playoff or use it to make the playoffs. If you only played in 5 leagues, you would have a choice from the 2 groupings left unused. Once in the finals, all stadium groupings available, regardless of the number of leagues played that season.

Yes please let's keep this discussion rolling. Two topics look to be reviewed by the Board will most definitely be the 200 Mil event and the points awarded other than WINS. A lot of people want that modified. Otherwise, no topic is off limits - so please keep your ideas and wish lists coming.

I think some tinkering with bonus points might be a good change. Too much onus, given to winning a championship.

Yes, winning a championship is what it is all about, BUT, sometimes a best of 7 game series becomes a crap shoot, with the best team falling short.

Although I believe EXTRA points should indeed be rewarded for making the playoffs, for making the finals, and for winning the whole enchilada, perhaps consider cutting back a little for each.

I do like the 6 league setup, with the worst of the 6 being tossed in the garbage.

Special thanks to Moose for his hard work. Always a fun tournament, win, lose or lose, or lose.

My 16 cents worth.

Doug

I think everyone’s a win is a win is a win is just fine until Player A in Central doesn’t make the finals with a 88 win team that wins championship-- and entered tied in standings against Player B in Western division with .450 players and best record in division other than player B is 72-90. Player A meanwhile has season's edge on player B but unfortunately is in division with Last Druid Cristano and MarcPelleter- beats everyone in the playoffs wins the championship gets 95 points and player B with 96 regular season wins and no playoff wins goes to the finals as the “ better player” because of more wins.

As a case in point Steve F, one of the very best players in Strat win percentage with his love of platoons and high value startering pitching has a .548 win percentage in the regular season in 85 leagues but once in the playoffs that falls to pedestrian .504 and he wins 19.4% championships less than the average playoff team as playoff opponents are more able to handle the types of teams he creates. My style is to build teams to succeed in playoffs and don’t worry about amassing the most regular season victories so that I have a .533 record in the regular season but a .546 playoff record and a 33% championship rate for teams that make playoffs. The reason for this type of team construction is that I get 2 free teams if I win the championship and nada for the best regular season record.

If we do go for wins why not just have the Barnstormer’s championship go to the team that has the most wins over the course of the finals championship so that if you win 9 games more than any other player in the regular season of the Barnstormers final you are automatically the champion? I think the fact that the schedules are unbalance actually means a win is not the same in all cases. The biggest value will go to players who get the most games against the highest percentage losing teams.